Here, we comment briefly on the relation between [1]} and this work.
As for the comparison to [2]},
our approaches are in principle similar,
with the major advantage of [1]} that they too consider an intrinsically 3D gas structure, from
the three-dimensional simulations of [4]}.
As we have shown in Figure REF , the dust opacitiesTheir “gas-only” opacity case
seems
to include the photoionisation of atoms [5]} but
no
molecular-line opacities.
This would severely underestimate the opacity.
of [1]} per gram of dust are consistent with the range that we consider as more likely, with a different net result because of our much lower assumed dust-to-gas mass ratio (\(f_{\textrm {d/g}}\sim 10^{-5}\) –\(10^{-3.5}\)  instead of \(f_{\textrm {d/g}}=10^{-2}\)  in their case).
